[jsr-314-open-mirror] [jsr-314-open] [490-XmlViews] Chapter 11: The JSF XML View Syntax

[Andy Schwartz]

On 10/19/10 1:06 PM, Ed Burns wrote:
> Executive Summary:
>
> * Andy comments on the new Chapter 11, basically stating that we don't
>   need it.
>   

Yep.

> * Ed replies stating that that Dan had requested full XML syntax, but
>   that Ed is willing to remove chapter 11 for now and simply rely on
>   what we have in the appendix regarding the facelets-processing elemens
>   in the faces-config-extension element.
>   

Works for me. :-)

> AS> I didn't realize that we were introducing a new VDL.  I thought that our 
> AS> efforts have been focused on allowing the existing Facelets VDL to be 
> AS> more XML-friendly by providing control over XML processing behavior.
>
> This is what Dan Allen has wanted all along.  It was very clearly stated
> in his requests and emails to this list.
>   

Although I followed/participated in these threads and discussed with Dan 
multiple times in person, I never realized that he was pushing for a new 
VDL.  I always thought that this was about making Facelets more 
XML-friendly as opposed to replacing Facelets with a new VDL.  Ah well, 
I suppose either approach can work, though personally I prefer sticking 
with Facelets as our main VDL.

> AS> The differences that we have been discussing between legacy 
> AS> xhtml-centric Facelets and the new xml-centric approach are related to 
> AS> processing of XML-centric constructs such as CDATA blocks, XML 
> AS> declarations, processing instructions, etc...  I didn't realize that we 
> AS> would also be changing how HTML template text/tags were handled.  If 
> AS> this means that you cannot use HTML elements in the new XML views, my 
> AS> guess is that nobody will be interested in adopting this approach.
>
> I thought so too, but that seems to be what Dan wanted so that's what I
> put in the spec.
>   

Hrm.... I thought that Dan stated the opposite of this.  Looking back at 
Dan's original "[jsf2next] might as well face it, Facelets is XML" email 
(12/11/09), I see these recommendations:

> So how to we move forward? We have to accept these truths (well, some 
> are recommendations):
>
> 1) A Facelets document is XML, plain and simple
> 2) The extension for a Facelets document becomes .view.xml (DOT view 
> DOT xml)
> 2) A Facelets document produces a component tree; verbatim content can 
> still be wrapped automatically as UIInstruction fragments, that does work
> 3) All markup declarations should be produced by the component tree 
> (e.g., XML declaration, doctype, namespaces, CDATA, XML comments, etc)
> This means we need the following tags:
> f:document
> f:doctype
> f:comment (why not, it is just xml)
> f:cdata
> (The prefix is debatable, I'm just throwing it out there)
>
> The markup declarations in the template DO NOT PASS THROUGH!

The second #2 :-) says: "verbatim content can still be wrapped 
automatically as UIInstruction fragments, that does work", which 
contradicts the behavior specified in Chapter 11.

> Unless anyone disagrees, I'll remove chapter 11, perhaps we can revisit
> this at such time as JBoss is able to contribute again to these
> discussions.
>   

Sounds good.  Our recent changes address Dan's #1, both #2s and parts of 
#3.  Seems like a good start for 2.1.  We can do more in future spec 
revs, hopefully with the involvement of our JBoss friends. :-)

Andy

> Ed
>
>